What’s the Difference?

Here’s the headline:

F-35 Jets: Chinese-Owned Company Making Parts for Top-Secret UK-US Fighters”

Sounds dramatic.

As it turns out, Exception PCB, a UK-based fabricator, is building circuit boards for the next-gen airfighter. And Exception is owned by Shezhen Fastprint, the Chinese fabricator.

All angst aside, however, how is this different than TTM being the largest board supplier to the US Department of Defense?

Laminate Consolidations Continue to Stack Up

AGC continued its consolidation of the laminates market this week, reeling in Taconic for an undisclosed amount. The Japanese company also acquired Nelco last winter, giving it two of the remaining US-based PCB materials manufacturers.

That leaves Isola and Rogers as the last two major players of a once formidable domestic laminate industry to call the US home. And neither company produces the majority of its product in onshore. (Sound familiar?)

With Rogers’ capacity consumed by the 5G rollout, some OEMs and fabricators have been turning more to Taconic as a source for high-rel end-products that required a Made in USA stamp.

The largest vendors — KingBoard, Shengyi, Nanya, ITEQ, and so on — are all based in Southeast Asia. The volume and variety of materials that can be sourced in the US continues to erode, and its hard to see that reversing course. To wit, in its announcement, AGC allowed that “Over time, materials made in Taconic’s Petersburgh, NY, location will be moved to another facility.”

Isola makes FR-4 in Ridgeway, SC, and AGC Nelco makes the same in Tempe, AZ. They join Rogers, Taconic and Arlon as manufacturers of electronics materials in the US.

Will trade tensions peaking, and 5G creating supply issues around the globe, is that enough?

Designing User Experience for the Factories of Tomorrow

by Olga Zinoveva, Senior Software Engineer, Bright Machines

The User Experience (UX) discipline in the technology sector has evolved rapidly over the last two decades and we’ve all witnessed the changes.  For example, the transition from button-based phones and keyboard-only interfaces to increasingly powerful yet easy-to-use, touch-based smartphones and tablets. A parallel change has been happening in factories, with industrial Human-Machine Interfaces (HMIs) evolving from physical push buttons, lights and switches in the 1980s, to the multi-touch screens of today. And we are not done evolving yet!

I have worked on various consumer applications in the past, including games and websites, and was directly responsible for building the UX on a couple of those projects. My experience in consumer UX gives me some insight into the many exciting opportunities that lie ahead for industrial UX. Here are a few I’ve been thinking of.

Defining UX in the factory context

In a setting where a vast array of hardware devices are connected to each other in complex ways, and users range from operators on the factory floor to project managers in remote offices, UX goes far beyond a single screen. Instead, it encompasses the full experience of using the system, from any interface or device that connects to it. Industrial UX is a mix of software (dedicated touchscreen panels or apps) and hardware (buttons, feeders) interfaces controlling the machines on the floor, monitors giving real-time status updates about the production line, and services generating reports based on data collected in the cloud over many weeks. Almost every component we build becomes a part of the user experience, so we must approach design holistically. Every software and hardware engineer, product manager, and data scientist must think like a UX designer.

Increased software capabilities mean increased complexity

The role and responsibility of software in manufacturing is growing rapidly. But with more software capabilities comes more UX complexity. As more tasks move from hardware to software – whether running on the device itself, in a local server, or in the cloud – the number of ways that users can interact with the system and their complexity increase. Yet the UX we build cannot simply hide this complexity from the users. A core concept of UX design is that people always form mental models of how a system operates, whether we want them to or not, and if their model sufficiently differs from reality, it will lead to frustration and mistakes.  Therefore, the next-generation factory UX will need to be intuitive and straightforward, but never oversimplified. The goal is to design a UX that helps users build the right conceptual models from the start to maximize productivity and minimize training time and mistakes.

The high bar set by consumer devices

Almost every worker in a modern factory has used a smartphone or tablet – this year, global smartphone usage is expected to hit 2.5 billion (and it’s growing)! As a result, today’s factory workers have a high level of technical literacy and familiarity with certain interaction standards. This represents an incredible opportunity for industrial UX because it can reduce training time for any UX that follows these standards. At the same time, the ubiquity of thoughtfully designed consumer devices has raised the bar for the quality of user interactions, responsiveness, and UX clarity in the factory context. Workers now expect industrial interfaces to work as well as their personal smartphones.

Building UX for the factory of tomorrow is no small feat, but it represents a massive opportunity and an exciting time for UX professionals as they help inform the next wave of industrial innovation.

An edited version of this article also appeared in Design World on June 3, 2019.

Leadership Failure! What Will It Cost You?

by Keith Martino

Mediocre Mike was a card shark.

He LIVED for the weekends. Saturdays and Sundays were the only mornings I ever knew Mike to leap out of bed. It was in his blood. Mike couldn’t wait to hit the casinos. Every weekend and holiday sunrise, he was among the first to start tossing out his homespun version of “fish bait.” Mediocre Mike loved to brag.

Slowly but surely, each Sabbath unsuspecting, wannabe gamblers migrated into the club where Mike hung out. It seldom failed. A few of the less fortunate souls would land at Mike’s table. No worries. Mike and his cronies were poised for the pleasure. With friendly smiles and sinister hearts, they shook down every novice card player who came their way. What could be more entertaining?

In his mind, Mikey worked hard Monday through Friday sharpening his craft. He stayed up late into the evening hours swigging bourbon, practicing his moves, and watching YouTube videos. When it came to hustling newbies, Mike was good. He was always prepared. He took pride in his winnings. It gave meaning to his life and made his son proud.

Of course, someone had to pay the price. In Mike’s case it was his corporate employer. As they say, one man’s loss is another man’s gain.

Mike got lucky and his bankrupt band of gypsies was bought out by a high-quality Fortune 100 company. Mike couldn’t believe his good fortune when his new ship came in. The sharp household logo added to his prestigious cover at the casino. Mike was on a roll.

So what does any of this have to do with leadership failure? Plenty!

In the first year with his new employer, Mike maintained a low profile. He hid out and let a hundred or so direct and indirect reports do whatever they liked. After all, who was Mike to blow the whistle on anyone else? He figured as long as his fingerprints weren’t on any egregious errors, his gig could go on forever.

And for a while, it did.

Mike sharpened his corporate gaming skills as he flipped the switch on his region to autopilot.

Like any looming bar bill, someone ultimately has to pay the price. Yep. Mike’s employer took it on the chin. Just one floor below him, one of Mike’s managers, Rambling Roger, started running a different racket. Roger began practicing a few new moves on his administrative assistant. Who knew? Everyone. Except Mike, of course.

Mike’s elevator never stopped on the second floor. It was essential to his third-floor strategy.

Yet, Roger’s seedy habits came to light anyway. His once loyal admin turned the tables on him and sued the corporation for sexual harassment, mental duress, and psychological cruelty. Mike wasn’t worried. This manager wasn’t one of Mike’s political buddies. Mike simply ushered in HR and pretended to be appalled by the findings. Meanwhile, he brushed up on his shuffling skills. And Mike shook off the losses as a necessary cost of doing business. At the company’s expense, of course!

Over time, Mike’s regional salespeople were found to be cheating on their commission plans. His operational leaders turned blind eyes to cost overruns. His staff took plenty of time running personal errands and convening for smoke breaks. The billion-dollar brand faltered.

You wouldn’t need to be a member of Mensa to calculate the cost to his company of Mediocre Mike’s leadership failure. It was high into the six-figure range. Likely higher.

What can you do if you have an employee or leader who has poisoned the well?

  1. Do nothing and hope s/he doesn’t mess up too badly? Don’t chuckle. It happens daily.
  2. Fire the person and replace him/her with someone from outside the company? That’s often an illusion destined to fail.
  3. Replace the person internally? Perhaps, but it will be most effective if you do the following:
  4. Reset the culture of the company, division, or team by replacing the leader internally and bringing in an outside leadership consultant to re-instill the values of the company.

Mediocre Mike was a card shark.

He LIVED for the weekends. Saturdays and Sundays were the only mornings I ever knew Mike to leap out of bed like a man on a mission. It was in his blood. Mike couldn’t wait to hit the casinos.

Don’t gamble on your losses with a leadership failure like Mediocre Mike. The bar tab will leave you with a hangover that may cost you your company’s reputation.

________________________________________________________________________

Keith Martino has a passion for helping engineering executives achieve stellar results. Martino authored the book Expect Leadership in Engineering. In addition, the team at Keith Martino has designed and launched Leadership Institutes at multiple engineering firms across the US. Martino is quoted in Young Upstarts, Entrepreneur Magazine, NewsMax Finance, Hotwires, Circuits Assembly, and Printed Circuit Design & Fab. For more information visit: www.KeithMartino.com

Who’s Leaving Whom?

According to the New York Times today, the Chinese government is compiling a list of companies and individuals to penalize in response to the US block on Huawei.

The piece ends with these thoughts:

Forcing out American companies from China’s electronics supply chain could have a major impact on Chinese manufacturers. It would also likely hasten strategies by American technology firms to diversify their supply chains away from China.

Yet if Beijing were willing to take that hit, many companies would struggle to immediately replicate production elsewhere. China’s density of component makers and assembly factories is unmatched around the world.

“It’s a really high-risk way to go about it,” said Andrew Polk, a founder of Trivium, a consulting firm in Beijing. “They are effectively forcing companies to choose, and companies will probably choose the U.S.”

Much has been made over whether Western companies will bail on China if it were to put the screws to them on trade. But if China were to retaliate against the US by shutting down access to certain markets or supply chains, is it unrealistic to think any Chinese companies might relocate as well?

Somewhere, Craig Gates is Probably Chuckling

Cemtrex today announced a pending six-for-one (!) reverse stock split of its outstanding common stock. The move comes at the OEM/EMS tries to regain Nasdaq compliance.

Rewind a little and you’ll see over the first two quarters Cemtrex’s revenues have dropped more than 22% and losses are piling up.

Rewind a little more, to April, and Cemtrex’s shareholders were approving a proposal to the number of authorized share shares by 20 million, to a total of 50 million.

Rewind a little more, to 2017, and Cemtrex was making a bid to acquire KeyTronic, despite the latter’s significantly larger size and experience in EMS. There were a total of three “offers” in all, none of which actually involved anything more than a press release.

As KeyTronic batted away the proposals, Cemtrex grew even more bold, asserting in a followup statement that its intended prey could do with better management. “A combination of the two companies will unlock significant shareholder value for both companies, by enabling cost savings, higher earnings per share and a more attractive price to earnings ratio than either company is currently maintaining.”

Eventually KeyTronic grew a bit aggravated with the unwanted attention, calling the suitor “unqualified” as a buyer. “Our initial research shows [Cemtrex] reports approximately $45 million of EMS revenue. In our opinion, this does not qualify [Cemtrex] to make any statements as to how it might operate an EMS business like KeyTronic which is over 10 times [its] current size in terms of revenue.”

The overtures ceased shortly thereafter. By the following January, Cemtrex was consolidating its EMS plants and selling off operations.

Still, even with that episode well in the rearview mirror, I have to think that wherever he is today, KeyTronic CEO Craig Gates must be smiling.

‘Huawei’ E.O. Portends Total Supply Chain Chaos

The headlines have been filled with reports on the pending US ban on domestic companies from conducting business with Huawei.

In submitting the order, President Trump cited cyber-warfare, espionage and threats to US national security as rationale for the ban.

Less noted: The impact on bare board and assemblies procured from China. After all, the executive order “prohibits transactions that involve information and communications technology or services designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied, by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary” as determined by the Commerce Secretary.

So while Huawei is a $100 billion company, larger than IBM, Sony, Hitachi, Panasonic and all but a few other tech firms, the declaration could have tentacles that reach far beyond the Chinese OEM. Even if all the defense industry primes, for instance, buy all their boards onshore (doubtful), many others do not, including the financial markets, and key industries such as nuclear, power, and so on.

Almost every North America-based board today shop brokers boards from Asia, mostly China. Their suppliers are, in turn, generally located in China as well. That includes the vast majority of the laminate industry. Sure enough, we are hearing reports of major laminate makers suspending shipments of key materials, including ones for the US defense primes, because of the executive order.

What’s the alternative? North American board fabricators lack the capability and capacity to take on high-volume production. The EMS industry has the capability, but not the capacity. And that doesn’t begin to address the region-to-region cost differences.

Then there’s Washington. The legislators are simply ignorant when it comes to understanding supply chain issues. The executive order targets companies that could put the US economy at risk. Any logical read of that would see that the telecom industry is only one part of the equation. Wall Street is equally at risk.

Just because Cisco or Juniper or HP or IBM or Dell or Arista don’t have Chinese names doesn’t mean they aren’t as reliant on the China supply chain as Huawei. Same goes for their EMS networks. Intel has six chip fabrication plants and three assembly/test sites. Two are in China. Qualcomm is a minority owner of SMIC, which has nine plants open or planned in China. It also has a JV assembly/test house with Amkor in Shanghai.

Take a look at HP’s supply chain. The OEM is sourcing product from China facilities of Foxconn, Jabil, Flex, Celestica, Inventec, New Kinpo, Wistron, Pegatron, Qisda, and TPV, among others. The workers on the HP lines number in the tens of thousands. That can’t be replaced easily, if at all.

Not just the large shops stand to be squeezed. Besides relying on China for raw materials, many smaller North American fabricators also outsource certain services and otherwise procure other relatively finished goods from there, such as engineering or laser drilling or mass lam boards.

Insofar as consumers are concerned, it’s probably a good thing this isn’t happening during the Christmas ramp. But that date is drawing near. Even without the tariffs, given the looming capacity constraints, prices are bound to spike.

And even if the questions surrounding Huawei are sorted out — a big “if” — the fun won’t stop there. At this writing, the US government is considering action against other Chinese OEMs, including ZTE and Hikvision.

Tempo Accelerates

Which EMS has received the most private equity funding over the past few years?

Chances are, it’s Tempo Automation. The San Francisco-based contract assembler just added another $45 million (that’s right) in new capital. That’s on top of the $20 million it garnered a year ago, which it used to build a new factory. Overall, we estimate Tempo has raised around $75 million over its six-year life.

Investors are falling in love with Tempo’s emphasis on software-based manufacturing. It has caught the attention of blue chip OEMs like Lockheed Martin, which is also a customer and investor. The latest round of funding, called a Series C, was led by existing investor, Point72 Ventures and includes an array of new and existing outside investors investors. Series C is typically the final funding round prior to an IPO or acquisition.

In an era where PCB assemblers aren’t rushing to go public, this is an interesting development. Privately held Tempo does not disclose its revenue, but it’s likely to be less than $100 million. That level of investment suggests a high level of confidence by outsiders that Tempo is on the right track.

Read our profile of Tempo here.

https://https://circuitsassembly.com/ca/editorial/menu-features/28301-ems-profiles-1711.htmlcircuitsassembly.com/ca/editorial/menu-features/28301-ems-profiles-1711.html

Should Terry Gou for It?

Terry Gou, Foxconn founder and chairman, is contemplating a run for the presidency of Taiwan. Should he go for it?

Given his wealth – an estimated $7.8 billion – and stature in Taiwan, some comparisons to US President Donald Trump will be inevitable. There are distinct differences in upbringing and temperament, however. Gou is a self-made man, having launched Hon Hai as a components supplier in the early 1970s. He built the company brick by brick, expanding into new markets as opportunities arose, and taking advantage of mainland China’s proximity and low cost-model. When the West started looking for cheaper manufacturing alternatives, he was ready.

He has generally been media-shy throughout his career. It was only after Foxconn came under scrutiny as workers started jumping off its roofs that NGOs began putting pressure on Apple, Foxconn’s largest customer, and Western media took note. Long articles in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Forbes followed.

It has been reported Gou wants to bring a business- and China-friendly approach to Taiwan. That would in some ways run counter to the current president Tsai Ing-wen, which has given Beijing a colder shoulder. Her administration is coming under criticism for stagnant wages among Taiwan’s middle class, however, opening the door for a challenger.

But is Gou the guy? Whether his domineering approach will be welcome even in Asian cultures today is unclear. In the wake of the Enron collapse, in 2007 the WSJ quoted him as saying, “Even for those of us who lived through Enron, it’s hard not to come away disgusted. I always tell employees: ‘The group’s benefit is more important than your personal benefit.’ ” At the time, a typical mid-level assembly-line worker in Taiwan earned about $230 a month, including overtime pay, while Gou was a multibillionaire.

Neither is the inherent conflict-of-interest with China, where Foxconn has the majority of its manufacturing capacity and business interests and employs hundreds of thousands of residents. Taiwan’s self-styled independence stature could be in question were Gou come to office. How would he priorities decisions that could mean risking his financial standing?

Citing divine inspiration, Gou told media that he seeks “peace, stability, economy and future.” Those are worthy goals. Given his track record as an employer and his financial dependence on China, how he will achieve them deserves scrutiny.

Productivity is King in All Types of Manufacturing Processes

Folks,

It’s been way too long, let’s look in on Patty and the boys…..

It was 5:30AM and Patty’s alarm went off. She was unusually tired today because of a PTA meeting last night. She had become much more interested in the school her twin sons went to when she found out that the school was no longer teaching cursive writing. She was too late for that battle, but had heard that the school was not going to teach long division. Another mother told her that the reason was that long division was too hard and it could be done with a calculator. When Patty heard this she “went through the roof.” Fortunately, when Patty attended the PTA meeting, she and the other parents were assured that long division was still being taught.

Patty’s sons would learn cursive, however, as both her mother and her husband’s mother would teach the boys during baby-sitting sessions – and once a week the boys would read one of the 100+ letters to home that their great grandfather wrote to their great grandmother during World War II. All written in cursive of course!

After her morning jog and workout Patty was in her office at Ivy U by 7:30AM. She turned on her laptop and saw an email from Mike Madigan, her former employer’s CEO. It read:

Dear Professor Coleman,

One of my golfing buddies owns a small jewelry firm, Galahad Jewelry in Providence, RI. One of the units in the company produces silver charms for charm bracelets. This unit is not performing well financially. After chatting with him I sensed that productivity is low, inventory is out of control, and the processes are not lean.

Could you visit his factory and perform an audit? Maybe Pete can go with you – just make sure he behaves.

The note finished with contact information for the company.

Not only was Pete willing to go, but Rob also had a colleague in nearby Brown University that he wanted to visit. A few days later our trio was heading south to Providence in Rob’s Buick.

“You guys don’t know squat about making charms for charm bracelets. Do you really think you can help them?” Rob teased.

“Hey, we’ve got the great Professor Coleman here. She can solve any problem! — Seriously, we’ve discuss this before, most manufacturing processes are similar. I won’t be surprised if we can help them a lot,” Pete answered.

They stayed in a hotel near the Galahad facility the night before the audit. They arrived at the facility the next morning and met with the site superintendent, Don Smithson. After exchanging pleasantries, Patty and Rob toured the manufacturing, inventory storage, shipping, and administrative areas. By then it was lunchtime. Pete had stayed behind to watch the manufacturing line and collect productivity data. During a late lunch, they requested some additional production and cost data from Smithson. They then requested that Smithson give them two hours to develop a summary of their findings.

After preforming all of the necessary calculations, Patty and her team prepared a Powerpoint presentation. Smithson had gathered a few of the process engineers and the manager of production Ervin “Bud” Clark. Clark was an intimidating man with sharp features and, it appeared, a quick temper.

Patty started the meeting by reviewing the strengths of the operation. The facility was so clean it could only be described as spotless. The production workers appeared to have very good attitudes and the quality of the resulting charms they produced was excellent. Bud Clark beamed as Patty was sharing this information. Then she reviewed the “Opportunities for Improvement” (OFI’s).

‘The greatest OFI is the line uptime. From the data you gave us, and from what we gathered today, we calculated that your uptime is 30%,” Patty began.

At this, Clark turned red in the face and demanded,” What do you mean by uptime Dr. Coleman?”

“Simply the amount of time the line is running during an 8-hour shift,” Patty responded.

Clark was now shaking with fury, “This is the greatest insult I have ever experienced, my lines are running almost 100% of the time. Smithson, let’s kick these Ivy Tower intellects out of here, they’re wasting our time!” he grumbled.

Smithson calmed Clark down and then said to Patty, “Thirty percent seems very low, how did you calculate it?” he asked.

“We did it two ways. Rob and I took the production metrics you gave us and calculated uptime, Pete also monitored the line and took readings, both methods yielded about 30%,” Patty responded.

At this Bud Clark exploded, “My lines run nearly 100% of the time. I can’t be convinced otherwise,” he fumed.

“Dr. Coleman, can you share some of the details relating to how you calculated 30%?” Smithson asked reasonably.

“Of course. Pete monitored the lines from the start of the shift through lunch. The time was from 8AM to 1PM.” Patty stated.

“Well, it shows right off the bat that you don’t know our schedule,” Clark fumed, “lunch is over at 12:30.” He was so riled that his face was red and he was shaking.

“That’s true Patty” said, “I’ll let Pete explain.”

“Technically the lunch period starts at 12 noon, but the workers shut their machines down at 11:48AM today. The lunch period is supposed to end at 12:30PM, but the workers did not get back to their stations until almost 12:45PM. It then took them until 12:55PM to get the machines running. So the 30 minute lunch period was actually 1 hour and 5 minutes,” Pete explained.

“Boy, what an eye opener,” Smithson said.

 Bud Clark seemed numb, but then he chimed in, “There’s no way that extra lunch time gives us only 30% uptime,” he snarled.

“True,” said Pete, “but the 15 minute break at 10:00AM was really 35 minutes.”

Now Smithson was getting agitated at Clark.

“Bud, what is going on?” Smithson said.

Patty felt it was time to interject some calming comments.

“To be honest, this type of situation is what we see in most audits,” Patty said sympathetically.

“Let’s let Pete finish,” Clark said glumly.

“Works starts at 8AM, but the team really didn’t begin making parts until almost 8:30AM,” Pete went on. In addition, set-ups for new jobs are performed on most machines two to four times per day. In theory they take 15 minutes, in practice more like 45 minutes,” Pete went on.

“So with all of this downtime our uptime is only about 30%?” Smithson groaned.

“Yes,” Pete responded.

Patty then showed how the production data for the last 3 months support the 30% uptime number.

“The good news is that if you can increase productivity by only 10%, your profits will more than double,” Patty added cheerfully.

“I find that hard to believe,” Clark said with an agitated voice and a red face.

“Me too”, said Smithson, “ if I increase productivity by 10%, I only have 10% more parts to sell, so profits will go up only 10%.”

“That would be true if you had no fixed costs, your fixed costs are high. Every additional part you sell brings in more revenue, but costs less to make because your fixed cost per part is lower,” Patty explained.

“I developed an equation the shows this,” she went on.

“In this equation nimproved  is the number of charms produced in a day after process improvement – let’s say that is 10% more than the current amount. We’ll use nold  as the current amount per day. Pu is the price you sell the charm for and Cu is the material cost. CostFixed represent the fixed costs,” she explained.

“I plotted a graph of profit versus productivity increase from the cost and production metrics you gave us. Note that current profits are at about $160,000/yr. With just a 10% increase in productivity the profits go to about $360,000/yr,” Patty continued.

Figure. Patty’s Graph of Profit Increase vs  Productivity Increase.

Both Smithson and Clark sat in their chairs dumbfounded. “If we can’t improve productivity by 10% we should be fired,” Clark humbly replied.

Discussion then ensued on how to improve productivity, much of it focused on how to minimize or eliminate turning the machines off. Both Smithson and Clark became energized by this discussion and also expressed their gratitude to Patty, Rob, and Pete.

“Did you notice anything else beyond production that could help us reduce costs?” Smithson asked.                                                                                                            

“You could save quite a bit by better inventory control,” Rob responded.

“I’m off the hook on this one Smithson,” Clark teased.

“I own inventory control,” Smithson agreed, “what did you find?”

“Well you have way more inventory than you need. We especially noted a block of silver as big as a microwave oven in your store room. We calculated its value at about $500K. I asked some people who have been with the company for over 15 years and they say it was there when they started,” Rob explained.

“The block is so big and heavy, we could never figure out how to work with it so we just put off dealing with it. Weeks became months and months stretched into years,” Smithson sadly replied.

“In addition, the shipping department, although neat, had multiple shipping cartons of the same box size that were partially used. People also commented that they sometimes had to hunt for items for production or shipping,” Rob went on.

Smithson sat in his chair looking glum.

“Dell estimated that the cost of one week’s inventory is about 1% of the value of the inventory, you have about 30 weeks of inventory. We estimate that your inventory carrying charges are greater than your profits,” Rob explained.

“I always wanted to assure we never ran out of material,” Smithson added a bit defensively.

“A worthy goal, but you can almost certainly accomplish that with five, or at most 10 weeks of inventory,” Rob replied.

The group then began discussing to how to reduce inventory and outlined a plan. Our trio agreed to come back in six weeks and access progress in both productivity and inventory control.

On the car ride back to Ivy University, Rob sensed that Patty and Pete were a little pensive.

“Hey you two, what’s up?” Rob asked.

“It seems like déjà vu all over again,” Pete chuckled.

Patty agreed, “The first productivity problem the Professor helped us with at ACME was so similar to this it’s so surprising.”

“That was the first of our many adventures together with the Professor, too many years ago now,” Pete added.

Patty agreed and Rob noted a little catch in her voice ….

Cheers,

Dr. Ron